Chevrolet introduced the Monte Carlo in 1970 as its entry into the personal luxury car segment. It was quite popular, and the nameplate would stick around into the next century. The third generation of the cars was produced from 1978-80, which included the seller’s apparent time capsule survivor. If true, this car has seen less than 1,300 miles of pavement in the past 42 years. Located in Downs, Kansas, the Chevy is available here on eBay where the bidding has reached $12,480. Not surprisingly, the reserve has yet to be met.
All General Motors’ mid-size cars went on a diet in 1978, taking the lead set by the full-size models a year earlier. So, the 1978 Monte Carlo would be leaner than its 1977 counterpart. From a styling perspective, the third-generation Monte’s aren’t as attractive as their predecessors (IMO) and the sales figures weren’t as robust. Another styling change occurred in 1981 which improved the looks of the auto and make for a less stubby-looking car, which would serve NASCAR and other racing venues well. 1980 Monte Carlo production was 148,842 units, of which 116,580 were the less formal “Sport Coupe.”
We suspect this apparent survivor is being offered by a dealer, so the history on the Chevy is minimal at best. The seller says the car has only 1,285 miles but offers no documentation to back that up. That implies somebody bought the car new with the intent to almost never drive it, thus it’s said to have been stored in a climate-controlled shed (?) for most of its life. Everything except the battery is original, even the tires. There is a bit of surface rust underneath, such as on the automatic transmission pan.
While the car looks great in the photos provided, no mention is made of how well it runs. For example, what steps were taken to ensure the fuel system wasn’t contaminated after all these years, and – if it was – has the delivery of said fuel been flushed out? The Chevy is powered by a 305 cubic inch V8 which was rated at 155 hp in those days (not a barn burner). Given the gas-conscious buyers of that era, wouldn’t that output rating be for a 2-barrel carburetor rather than a 4-barrel as the seller mentions? A bigger carb on the 305 just doesn’t sound right. I wish a few more details had been provided.
I suppose someone wanting to get something they missed in the 80’s other than that worthless. Anemic power, lack luster looks and cheap build quality, yeah buy it and put it away for another 40 years. Was a bit harsh huh? I apologize.
Hey, don’t be a cad, Cad.
Actually, I agree with you completely. Not harsh.
And not Monte Carlos finest hour.
Cadman and 370, GM may have had some problems with these but my first wife had one of these, circa 1978, before we married and never had a minutes’ trouble out of it. Maybe she got one from a good build day at the plant?
I’d like it better if the odometer had turned over. Then one could drive it, and not worry.
The 305 4bbl was an option for 1980. If you wanted a V8 with a 2bbl, then Chevrolet offered the 267.
Maybe people are just trying to get into the spirit of the current time? I mean there are a lot of similarities between today and 1980. Rapid inflation, global instability, high gasoline prices, rising interest rates, and so on.
I’d still rather have this than most of the blah looking stuff they’re making today. highways full of little insect looking blobs.
This one looks to be a nice example; I always despised the way the plastichrome bumper strips would separate and go missing from the bumper covers. I’d personally try to source a full “gage” instrument cluster for this one, if I were to buy it. Would like to see some documentation on the backstory, though. GLWTA!! :-)
No documentation, really? No foolin’,,,because there isn’t any. 113,000 miles on a 42 year old car, is about 2500 a year, what 50 miles a week? I could easily see someone doing that and put back in the garage. I see cars like this all the time out here. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great find,, I’m tired and am sure everyone else is too, about listing why this isn’t a 1300 mile car. I do like the downsized Montes, a mere shred of the original, but this was the 80’s, and it’s a clean one, I just wish these sellers would stop trying to bilk negligent people with phony stories, but may as well wish for the moon whilst I’m at it.
I don’t understand the logic of buying a mid-range car & not using it.
Looking for a return on capital or money spent just does not hold water in today’s environment.
The way things are going, is mighty strange.
I have noticed that gas pumps at service stations are being converted to 4 digits, that means at least $10.00 per gallon. This sure smells like electric cars are on the horizon for everyone.
So what is going to happen to gas guzzlers?
Look up pets.com’s stock trajectory during the year 2000 to get a rough idea!
Just kidding. Kind of. If we continue on our present course, then yeah. But I don’t see us going to electric cars. I see a major political change in November of this year and in 2 years which will reverse that.
But I do think the value of a lot of these vehicles is going to adjust downwards regardless. This isn’t sustainable.
I remember when the pumps went to THREE digits, we thought the world was coming to an end, and for the gazillionth time, perhaps in a city locale electric cars might work, where all that extra juice is going to come from is something these electric nuts never talk about. The grid is already overwhelmed. For rural areas, like where I live, it will never replace good old gas, not any time soon, anyway. “Range anxiety” is the latest phobia of electric car owners. Charging stations with cords missing, “regular” cars parked in the way, I just think it’s a band-aide on a heart attack, and another money making scheme that will vanish. Our economy and way of life would have to change drastically for electric cars to work, and these spoiled brats with their mountain homes the King of Siam would be happy with,, aren’t going to give that up, even at $10/gal.
Gas guzzlers? Well, gas guzzlers have long been removed from the general population and anyone driving one today, probably has the money to pay for it. I’d love to gloat at the diesel truck owners,,,not so happy now, eh?, but high fuel costs affects us all.
Feel better now?
FFS
I love the idea of an electric vehicle as a daily driver to get too & from work. However, I drive from Milwaukee to Phoenix fairly frequently & I can make that trip in 2 days, Oklahoma City being the half way stop-off point.
If it takes a couple hours to recharge an electric car after 300 miles of driving, this 2 day trip is now suddenly a 4 or 5 day trip…each way. I can’t take off work long enough for that to be even worth while.
Gasoline isn’t going out of my life anytime soon.
I had to look up “FFS”.
Still getting used to “WTF” & “MILF”.
My uncle’s favorite exclamation back in the day was “Jeepers Creepers”.
While normally I would also err on the side of skepticism… the only favorable thing that leads me to potentially believe the mileage number is no one is doing 100K+ miles on original tires over 42 years. But even if I were in the market for this car, I wouldn’t leap without something far more substantive in supporting the claim. And I also still wouldn’t pay (now) $14,100+ (reserve still not met) for this one, even though Monte Carlos from Gens 1 thru 4 remain high atop my favorites list. Yes, even these.
Stevieg, not to get too political, but you and everyone you know needs to realize a vote on the left is to just continue this downward spiral here in the USA.
I can’t imagine buying walking into a showroom and purchasing a new ’78 – ’80 Monte Carlo, Cutlass, Grand Prix or Regal and thinking “now this is well made, beautiful car”.
Wear on the pedals and steering wheel is consistent with very low mileage. Beyond that, these cars simply didn’t last 113,000 miles in this kind of shape. Doors sagged, interior door pull straps pulled out, the chrome rub strips on the bumpers fell off, the aluminum trunk lids warped, the seat foam collapsed, etc, etc, etc.
Skepticism is always good. However, just one look at the chassis of this car, with all its original parts, spiral shocks, spring ID tags still in place, minimal surface rust on bare metal parts, and untarnished zinc plated nuts, etc., and the perfectly clean floor pans still showing factory overspray, makes it very easy to know that this is NOT a 113K mile car.
But I do agree with all the comments about it being a very odd decision to put a car like this particular one away for 40+ years and not use it.
Mileage claim is almost surely legit. There’s some surface rust on some components but those were not painted so that’s why. I agree with you on this being a very bizarre choice of a car to salt away but someone did. It also looks like it was stored properly, though whether that was by accident or deliberately is unknown. I would love to hear the back story on this.
Monte’s are OK. I’ve owned a 73, 76, 78 and bought an 86 SS new and drove it 250,000 miles. That said, this one isn’t the nicest version of Monte Carlo. Someone will buy it, and may store it, but I don’t know why.
Beautiful Monte. The cops used a later model Monte with the flush headlamps 1987 ? as a ghost car in our town. Silver one.
i think a rusty trannie pan is a plus,over 90% are wet with leaks,
making you wonder about how frequently level checks were made
and clutch ring wear.
I was assistant service manager at a very busy Chevy Olds dealer in mid to late 70s. I was outside talking to a customer and in pulls a car carrier with a load of new 1978 Monte Carlos. I almost puked after seeing that hideous design. It wasn’t until the SS came out in 1983, that GM got its head out of its rectum. I bought a new 88 SS with every option. This car on eBay is a total waste of money.
I do not remember the Emblems being low on the front fender.
The emblems on the front fenders are correct.
Besides the restrictive ’70s flat pellet cat converter, the crazy route the exhaust pipe takes is not helping matters either.
I love that this one is so original. Takes me back.
This Monte doesn’t have to have either 13k miles or 113k..it could have anywhere in between. It was quite common to spin the odometers back then…happened a lot in that era. And who believes a car that has only 13k has absolutely nothing to back that up?
These sure looked better than the awful colonnade models of 73-77.
This one might justify the bids had it been heavily optioned with power accessories, bucket seats/console and either the rare T-Tops or power sunroof options… or was equipped with the seldom seen Turbo V6
Would this have been the final year for a carbureted Chevy? My ’81 Camaro came with a “Computer Command Control” throttle body injection.
Not even close- The V-6 received TBI (Throttle Body Injection) in 1985, while the 305 remained carbureted up through 1987.
Well, my ’81 Camaro had a system called “Computer Command Control”, which could be considered a primitive throttle body injection system. It was an early attempt to give the traditional tried and true carb a more efficient fuel metering system to meet increased emissions and economy requirements.
Since the 229 V6 was essentially the same as a 305 minus 2 cylinders, I was wondering if Chevy decided to move CCC up into the bigger engines.
Article about CCC from the day: https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/docs/gm-heritage-archive/historical-brochures/Innovation_and_Technology/GM-Introduces-CCC.pdf
I had one of these 1978 Monte Carlo, bought it $400 as a got to work and back as I didn’t want to drive my ’72 Chevelle daily any longer. Was a beater, headlinere fell down, interior was cheap lots of plastic part that broke, but it served it’s purpose for a few years until the 305 finally died and off to the junkyard it went
These cars were tanks tho…my 79 Monte I built was kind of a lumbering brute…but I decided to spice up chassis a bit with oversized B-body front brakes, rear disc conversion, Hotchkis sups., 1LE front rotors, F41 38mm front anti-roll bar from an 86-92 Iroc Z, built 355 amd a TH400 with 3.73 US Gears out back inside an ‘80 7.5 turbo V6 Monte rear end using a 8.5 ring gear spacer from Richmond…and that completwly changed the attitude of how that car drove and ran lol. Almost forgot-a G-Force crossmember for the 40-series Flowmasters and X-pipe took care of the exhaust note.
It’s always so entertaining to read the cranky comments about cars like this that were stowed away for decades not being worth anything. It’s a great looking car and perfect for someone who admires 70’s/80’s malaise design. Worth every penny to the right person. FYI on build quality. We drove our 81 diesel Cutlass for 3 years and 125k miles before trading it in on a shiny new VW Quantum. Yes! The dreaded GM diesel survived all those miles w/out issue.
Opinion is all relevant but numbers don’t lie. I recently commented on a Duster with a slow 105 hp engine and a reader defended it as going 80 mph all day long. Good luck with that in Duster’s 55mph world. Here, we have a newer 150hp Chevrolet and it’s not a barn burner. In 1980, that was decent. A midsize coupe is hard to find in 2022. An American made car is a novelty (trucks, SUVs dominate). So when I see a Monte Carlo I see a stylish 2 door when GM wasn’t afraid to compete in all segments. Cosmetically, it looks good so pending a thorough mechanical inspection it might be decent. I just wish you get a personal luxury car now.
If these came from the factory with proper wheel and tire size like 15 inch rims 10 inch wide in the rear and 8 inch in front with rubber to match. A 350 4bl and topped off with 5 speed manual this would have been a top seller leaving camaros and vettes sitting on the lot . The quarters and fenders on these Montes are pure hot rod the minute you put the right wheels in them . My father in law had a black 78 with an early 70s set of vette wheels looked sic (good)even sounded good with dual exhaust on a 305 4bl
Kirk you are correct about the 350 engine. But in 1980 the Corporate Average Fleet Economy federal mandates put the kibosh on factory performance to get better mileage ratings. Secondly, most consumers wanted better EPA mileage numbers after a couple of oil embargoes and the big increase in pump prices. A very sad time. By 1982, a 4.4 liter V8 was the top option and it sucked!
I’ll give a dollar a mile for it. These were the worst one made.
I bought a very clean low millage 1980 Monti Carlo twenty years ago, it had the small 305 V8 that was powerless, I fixed that by installing new 350 that included an aftermarket cam, Headers and Pete Jackson gear drive, it was a blast to drive, unfortunately coming home from O’Hare one night, I was a second shift mechanic at American Airlines I was stopped at a light on Higgins road when an out of control Ford van came flying across the intersection hitting me and totaling out my Monti, it was a fun work car that I only drove for a couple of weeks before the accident.
This one looks great and was a no-sale at $17,700! I’m torn about the mileage claim, there is no engine pic from above and I see evidence of an oil leak at the rear oil pan (rear main or pan gasket?). Also, the speedo connection at the trans has sludge built up. There shouldn’t be any or that at 1300 miles. I’m seeing a very well taken care of 101k miles. A power washer and skilled detailer can do wonders! BTW, a friend in high school had one with the 305/4bbl and it ran like a scalded ape!
The 1980 Monte Carlo had a 5.0 4bbl V8 so should keep up with traffic nicely. Not a SS 454 or Hemi but good for its time
1978-’80 is by far better styled then ’81-’88…excluding the SS! And unlike Ford with two barrels on everything, GM used the Quadrajet on 4.9L V8’s and up quite extensively. Only thing that would make this one really rock is the turbo 3.8L version!
My parents had a dark green metallic ’80 equipped outside like this one, but a V6. It was well-built for the time.
Unusual to have all that exterior trim and not have the body side moldings, which were optional but most had them.
One nice thing about Montes was that from 1973-1980, every single one of them came with the wider tires and sport suspension standard, unlike the other GM coupes from the other divisions.